A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, that is a 1 with eighty zero's. The chance for getting an eye by blind coincidence is 1 in 10^300, (science assumes that something with a chance of 1 in 10^200 will never happen) so that is not an option. Therefore they go for an eye, made in very many much more likely (but still unlikely) small steps. I cannot cross a distance of 10^300 meters in one go. I can only do one step a second, so it will take me 10^300 seconds to bridge that distance. That's equal to more than 10^280 years. And the evolutionists hold that the age of the universe is only 5x10^9 years old. That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The idea of a 'hopefull monster', a massive and multifaceted evolutionary change, occurring in a single generation " or even a few generations " simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar institute symposium, (23) which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematicians showed the statistical improbability of a given assumuption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount.... That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.....000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The...response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

So, how many times in a second was this event attempted? 1? 30? 1,000,000? And was it only allowed one second? One attempt?

The odds are meaningless with infinite resources.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, that is a 1 with eighty zero's. The chance for getting an eye by blind coincidence is 1 in 10^300, (science assumes that something with a chance of 1 in 10^200 will never happen) so that is not an option. Therefore they go for an eye, made in very many much more likely (but still unlikely) small steps. I cannot cross a distance of 10^300 meters in one go. I can only do one step a second, so it will take me 10^300 seconds to bridge that distance. That's equal to more than 10^280 years. And the evolutionists hold that the age of the universe is only 5x10^9 years old. That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The idea of a 'hopefull monster', a massive and multifaceted evolutionary change, occurring in a single generation " or even a few generations " simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar institute symposium, (23) which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematicians showed the statistical improbability of a given assumuption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, that is a 1 with eighty zero's. The chance for getting an eye by blind coincidence is 1 in 10^300, (science assumes that something with a chance of 1 in 10^200 will never happen) so that is not an option. Therefore they go for an eye, made in very many much more likely (but still unlikely) small steps. I cannot cross a distance of 10^300 meters in one go. I can only do one step a second, so it will take me 10^300 seconds to bridge that distance. That's equal to more than 10^280 years. And the evolutionists hold that the age of the universe is only 5x10^9 years old. That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The idea of a 'hopefull monster', a massive and multifaceted evolutionary change, occurring in a single generation " or even a few generations " simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar institute symposium, (23) which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematicians showed the statistical improbability of a given assumuption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

Evolution isn't a product of chance.

Of course it is when referring to the origins of the universe silly, there's nothing else to label it lol.

Chance- a possibility of something happening, the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.

Even if one chose to bypass evolution or abiogenesis ideas and go to the first "source', one comes across a philosophical conundrum.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

This is what is called a straw man argument; in that what you're trying to attack and disprove has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Firstly, while it is true that a 300 AA protein has 1^390 combinations, this in and of itself doesn't really say anything at all.

For example, how many of those possible combinations yield a viable protein? Well, as we know of multiple 300 amino acid proteins that function quite happily, there are actually many, many combinations that are viable.

So, right from the very get-go; your argument falls catastrophically on it's face because your mathematical observation you base your calculations on is fundamentally flawed.

Moving forward, while your argument falls down here, it cracks its skull open when you consider that the smallest protein is 20, not 300 amino acids in length; combining these two aspects, the probability is reduced drastically.

But that's for one protein alone.

You may argue that there are hundreds of proteins in the human body, how can all of them have originated considering that even with 20 amino acids it's highly unlikely for hundreds of proteins to spontaneously appear.

Well, the simple answer, that makes you argument fall down, crack it's head open, and further leads to an sub-cranial aneurism is the assumptions you make.

Your assuming that proteins spontaneously appear.

If evolution worked on the principle that to get a new protein you have to wait for a sequence of DNA to "just so happen" mutate aimlessly until it hits a new protein; you may be correct, but this argument has two problems.

1.) That's not the way evolution works

And

2.) That's not the way evolution works.

While you may complain that these are the same point; I felt it had to be spelt out twice because of how fundamental this error is.

In reality; you don't have to create a new protein from scratch, but simply adapt one that already exists. Remember, DNA allows for gene duplication, where a gene that exists can be duplicated so that you now have two copies of protein producing gene.

That second gene can then undergo subsequent mutations to produce a new protein.

A new protein only has to be slightly different from a existing protein in order to do something new.

For example, Nylonase, an enzyme for breaking down Nylon, is an adapted form of another protein that only requires a couple of very easy to occur changes.

So, it should be noted that this right here fundamentally destroys your argument; you claim that new proteins arising is virtually impossible and yet we have seen one occur for the very reason that to get new proteins to do new things you don't need a significant amount of change.

Indeed, what this would produce would be a collection of proteins that are very similar to one another structurally, but differ in function, protein sequences and point mutations.

That's exactly what we see in life.

Proteins aren't all completely and fundamentally different, indeed most proteins form groups of proteins that are all very similar in structure; the Heme group of proteins is a good example; all do vastly different things, but all boil down to effectively the same structure without a great deal of fundamental difference between them.

It gets even easier than that too, because you can also have sequence changes due to mutations including frameshift, insertions, deletions and various other parts that can mathematically shuffle protein secondary structures without requiring an entire protein to be created from scratch.

In essence, your maths is wrong because you make ridiculous assumptions that has nothing to do with evolution; when you consider what evolution does actually do, and how it actually works; you see the evidence in protein sequencing, groups and phylogeny indicate that not only is it pretty easy to obtain a new protein sequence in an organism; but the whole organization of proteins within organisms indicates their evolutionary origin.

At 2/3/2016 10:30:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Even if one chose to bypass evolution or abiogenesis ideas and go to the first "source', one comes across a philosophical conundrum.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

4.) Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without the universe existing in a higher dimensional plane that has rules that extend beyond the rules of our reality.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Eliyahu, when you cite these arguments, have you done diligence on them? I.e, have you actually researched whether these objections have appeared routinely in scientific discussion, and whether they have already been dealt with?

Or do you rather find any pretext to object, quote blindly, invent a grand conspiracy to explain why (as you suppose) they've never been explored or addressed by the most rigorous, diligent and accountable discipline in the history of human thought, leave it to others to refute, then find rhetorical pretexts to dismiss their refutations?

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

At 2/3/2016 10:30:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Even if one chose to bypass evolution or abiogenesis ideas and go to the first "source', one comes across a philosophical conundrum.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

4.) Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without the universe existing in a higher dimensional plane that has rules that extend beyond the rules of our reality.

This would conclude with a place that Atheists would conclude within the Atheistic mind as a fairytale, implying that "nonreality reality" jumped our reality into existance by some unexplicable process. It implies that from the "nonreality reality" came a medium such as likened to a computer program with a loop. This concludes with philosophical ideas such as higher dimensional beings, our reality being a simulation or a nonparadoxial philosophy of time such as the first person came from the last person in a "time loop", thus declaring everyone in your line the grandchild of all and the grandparent of all. No matter how an Atheist looks at it they will have to accept a higher reality thus making it a logical falacy to declare higher beings or a higher being nonexistant.

There are basic theories one must accept intellectually.

1)We are a simulation

2)This is a medium

3)There are higher realities

4)Everything and anything is possible

5)Higher beings

6)A hugher being

7)We are not real

8)We are in a dream

9)This is a matrix

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

Get over it Ram, the existence of the universe and the existence of humans are a product of chance without a Creator and you know it, all the charades and all the bull crap that denies it is simply games, that is something you need to accept. Read the definition of "chance". You can't escape that or dodge it, it is pure chance, sorry.

We cannot even get to "pure chance" without getting past the paradoxes caused by the 2 theories of the universe meaning infinite universe vs. finite universe.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 2/4/2016 2:12:45 AM, brontoraptor wrote:We cannot even get to "pure chance" without getting past the paradoxes caused by the 2 theories of the universe meaning infinite universe vs. finite universe.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

As this is getting into the deep end, I offer this deep debate video between renowned apologist William Lane Craig and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. It is pretty accessible for those with the prerequisite attention span (over 2 hours long):

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

Get over it Ram, the existence of the universe and the existence of humans are a product of chance without a Creator and you know it, all the charades and all the bull crap that denies it is simply games, that is something you need to accept. Read the definition of "chance". You can't escape that or dodge it, it is pure chance, sorry.

Which part do I need to get over?

The broad misrepresentation of the role of "chance" in the processes and theories we have that explains our existence, whilst ignoring the role of the defined statistical processes which play the overwhelmingly major role in what we see?

Or should I get over you conflating "a product of chance" with "a product of an unending set of impossible coincidences", which appears to be how you are rhetorically presenting the argument.

While it could be argued that we are a product of chance, we are most assuredly not a product of an unending set of impossible coincidences. Moreover, we are product of chance in a technical sense, but temperature is a product of chance, as is chemistry and chemical reactions, as is fusion, as is many other aspects that are reliant on probabilities in their very make up.

However, I don't see you raising your pitchforks every time someone mixes and acid and a base.

Here is the deal; chance is a factor in everything; indeed the universal inclusive of probabilities and chance has yeilded some of the most specific and accurate predictions about the universe of all time.

The problem isn't the chance bit, it's the statistics of chance, and how those chances sum up over time in all places; that is a statistical concern. In terms of quantum theory, chance balances out on the large scale and, in terms of evolution, while evolution makes use of things that occur via random processes; the statistics that drive it are very much not random, and make evolution towards bigger, better and smarter almost a statistical inevitability.

In reality, we do not have the data to judge whether the chances of the universe existing on it's own without a creator. You cannot draw any estimates or conclusions, so at this level, you cannot even claim that the universe is unlikely, or a coincidence at this level either. If you are, you are just making it up because you want to believe it.

So given this, you are effectively implying that an argument based on assuming your preferred conclusion despite not having the data to support it means that an entity which we cannot see, measure, or have any direct evidence and indeed, have no idea whether can potentially exist in reality must definitely exist; leave alone the absence of any evidence, argument or justification that even if such an entity could potentially exist, and does, that this entity is your god, is interested in our affairs, has interacted with humanity and is concerned with our eternal souls.

You have no data for any of these conclusions, no positive evidence, or any hard facts that support this; yet you seem to feel that my position is absurd.

You really need to take a look at what it is your proposing, and the implications of what your argument means because it's generally wise to remove the small deciduous forest from your eye, before removing the splinter from mine.

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, that is a 1 with eighty zero's. The chance for getting an eye by blind coincidence is 1 in 10^300, (science assumes that something with a chance of 1 in 10^200 will never happen) so that is not an option. Therefore they go for an eye, made in very many much more likely (but still unlikely) small steps. I cannot cross a distance of 10^300 meters in one go. I can only do one step a second, so it will take me 10^300 seconds to bridge that distance. That's equal to more than 10^280 years. And the evolutionists hold that the age of the universe is only 5x10^9 years old. That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The idea of a 'hopefull monster', a massive and multifaceted evolutionary change, occurring in a single generation " or even a few generations " simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar institute symposium, (23) which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematicians showed the statistical improbability of a given assumuption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

And all of that is based on the erroneous assumption, that all that exists today has evolved in a mere 14 billion years.

The S-word of God. The sharp two edged Tongue, that cuts all the way through to the division of the Soul and the spirit.

"Evolution is mathematically impossible" So is the existence of life on earth. Take one thing away that makes life possible which is hundreds if not thousands of requirements life would not exist.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

A small to average protein is made up of 300 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, so therefore there are 20^300 (that is 20 to the power of 300) different ways to assemble an amino acid, that equals 10^390, and that is a 1 with 390 zero's. That is in comparison with the 10^80 atoms in the universe, a practically infinite number.

On the other hand, a human has less than 100,000 genes. (10^5) who fulfill a practical function. When we then assume that there are 100 million different species (which is a high estimation), and that they all have 100,000 genes, (which is too much) and that these genes are all different, (which is absurd, many are the same) and that during 5 billion years there have been each year so many species with each 100,000 functioning genes, (which is of course way too many) then there should have been in all of history a total of 5 x 10^(8+5+9) = a maximum of 10^23 genes.

The total amount of proteins that can be produced by a gene are 10^390.

That means that the chance for the production of one useful protein is 10^23 in 10^390, and that is equal to a chance of 1 in 10^367.

And that is in comparison to the 10^80 atoms in our visible universe and infinitely small chance.

Science assumes that something that has a chance of occurring of less than 1 in 10^200, that that will never happen.

It should be clear by now that blind chance will not be able to assemble a functioning gene.

"To say that an object like an eye or a protein molecule is improbable means something rather precise. The object is made of a large number of parts arranged in a very special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have been arranged is exceedingly large. In the case of a protein molecule we can actually calculate that large number. Isaac Asimov did it for the particular protein haemoglobin, and called it the Haemoglobin Number. It has 190 noughts. That is the number of ways of rearranging the bits of haemoglobin such that the result would not be haemoglobin. In the case of the eye we can't do the equivalent calculation without fabricating lots of assumptions, but we can intuitively see that it is going to come to another stupefyingly large number."

Richard Dawkin, "Climbing Mount Improbable"

"The chance that one protein made up of 100 amino acids will come up by coincedence, is 10^-130. Don't try to imagine this number, or to translate it into known parameters. Just let go of the idea that you can make proteins by chance. Even if the whole world population would help you by working day and night with the incredible speed of one million proteins a second, without ever making the same protein twice, then it would take them still 10^107 years, or more than 5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 the estimated age of the universe, to come up with all the possible combinations.

Enough about this, this is clear by now."

Christian de Duve, Nobel Price Laureate and biochemist, "The Living Cell", part 2.

Is it by now clear enough that the chance for even one functioning protein coming into being by blind coincidence, is zero?

Dawkins tries to wiggle out of this problem in the following way; he writes in "The Blind Watchmaker":

"Answer the following two questions:

1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?

2. Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?

The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no. The odds against a 'yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace. The answer to Question 2 is equally clearly yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small."

So Dawkins admits here that the chance that the eye came to be in one shot by coincidence, is about zero. And therefore he assumes that it came to be by very many small steps, which are much more likely, (but still very unlikely) than having a whole eye all at once.

HOWEVER: If the chance of making the whole eye at once is many times smaller than 1 in the number of all the atoms in the universe, then it follows from that that the time needed to do it in many small steps which are much more likely (but still unlikely) is way to big. Because than you would need an absurd amount of small steps = an absurd amount of time, to get the job done.

The amount of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80, that is a 1 with eighty zero's. The chance for getting an eye by blind coincidence is 1 in 10^300, (science assumes that something with a chance of 1 in 10^200 will never happen) so that is not an option. Therefore they go for an eye, made in very many much more likely (but still unlikely) small steps. I cannot cross a distance of 10^300 meters in one go. I can only do one step a second, so it will take me 10^300 seconds to bridge that distance. That's equal to more than 10^280 years. And the evolutionists hold that the age of the universe is only 5x10^9 years old. That means that we are lacking time. Something like 10^280 years.

That is, written in full: 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years are lacking in the age of the universe, to create an eye by blind coincidence.

5 billion years doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.

Conclusion: Evolution is not a serious option.

Somebody who believes in evolution believes in more absurd and more impossible things than somebody who believes that somebody walked over water or raised the dead.

These facts are established at a scientific conference:

From the book: "The Science of God" by dr Gerald Schroeder:

"The idea of a 'hopefull monster', a massive and multifaceted evolutionary change, occurring in a single generation " or even a few generations " simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar institute symposium, (23) which brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematicians showed the statistical improbability of a given assumuption, the response of the biologists was that the mathematics must somehow be flawed since evolution had occurred, and had occurred through random mutations."

23: P. Moorehead and M. Kaplan, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967

Evolution is dead, only the laymen, brainwashed with lies, don't know it yet.

That's a well presented theory but it contradicts what we have already observed in reality. We have already observed animals that have evolved differently when isolated from each other, including digestive tract adaptations http://www.sciencedaily.com...

This is proof animals can change. A lot of little changes eventually becomes big changes.

The argument that species can only change so far past a genetic baseline is illogical. Each new phenotype is the new baseline for itself.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

Get over it Ram, the existence of the universe and the existence of humans are a product of chance without a Creator and you know it, all the charades and all the bull crap that denies it is simply games, that is something you need to accept. Read the definition of "chance". You can't escape that or dodge it, it is pure chance, sorry.

If what you say is true and this is a result of chance then your logic and understanding of reality is itself a mere product of chance and is therefore subject to change making your view nothing more than a "moment" that isn't even real or valid. Your viewpoint will merely randomly change into something else so even offering it up as a possibility is useless and explains nothing concrete,

At 2/4/2016 2:12:45 AM, brontoraptor wrote:We cannot even get to "pure chance" without getting past the paradoxes caused by the 2 theories of the universe meaning infinite universe vs. finite universe.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.

. God creating the universe isn't illogical,

Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball

No one claims something exists in literally nothing.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

The concept of time becomes meaningless without an intelligent mind. The universe being eternal wouldn't coincide with time being eternal. Creation doesn't claim time had a beginning, it says time within the universe had a beginning. Since God supposedly has a concept of time, time is as a concept eternal and existed eternally in the mind of God.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

Concluding history goes on and on forever in the past is merely a circular argument resulting from positing time is eternal. Its an equivocation fallacy. History applies only to what has happened in the universe when the universe began. Not history is attached with time.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

So you're saying God exists as the outside power that isn't bound by rules of humans perceptions of reality.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

Get over it Ram, the existence of the universe and the existence of humans are a product of chance without a Creator and you know it, all the charades and all the bull crap that denies it is simply games, that is something you need to accept. Read the definition of "chance". You can't escape that or dodge it, it is pure chance, sorry.

Sorry EV, but evolution is NOT chance, especially not PURE chance. Reading the definition of chance does not change that fact, you need to learn something about evolution before making these baseless assertions. That which drives evolution; natural selection, is quite specific and deliberate.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 2/3/2016 10:30:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Even if one chose to bypass evolution or abiogenesis ideas and go to the first "source', one comes across a philosophical conundrum.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

4.) Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without the universe existing in a higher dimensional plane that has rules that extend beyond the rules of our reality.

This would conclude with a place that Atheists would conclude within the Atheistic mind as a fairytale, implying that "nonreality reality" jumped our reality into existance by some unexplicable process.

The correct answer to where the universe came from is:

"We don't know".

What you are doing, is defining God in such a way that all the things you are ridiculing Atheism for seem to disappear. You still have exactly the same problems; things existing without any reason or cause; eternalism; higher plains of reality; etc.

For some reason, however, God doesn't have these problems because of the way you define him.

God doesn't solve any of these problems, you have just said that they aren't problems for God.

That's great, but it is also plainly and clearly logically appropriate to do exactly the same thing by defining reality itself in the way you define God, just without the all seeing eternal entity.

Your argument is called "special pleading". You are adamant that only God solves these problems and is not subject to them; without any justification of why only God solves those problems; indeed, my 4th point requires exactly the same things as God, and doesn't include God.

At 2/3/2016 10:30:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Even if one chose to bypass evolution or abiogenesis ideas and go to the first "source', one comes across a philosophical conundrum.

1)The universe/reality never existed, then it just jumped into existance. This is a paradox, unmeritable, illogical, and impossible within the constructs of our reality.Even if we cede that it might be true, it enters the physical naturalistic paradox. What is outside of it? And what is outside of it must in itself be eternal or it defies all naturalistic laws by existing within literally nothing. It's like saying a basketball hangs in nothing and nothing is outside the ball.

2)The universe/reality is eternal and time is eternal. This gives way to a devastating paradox beyond comprehension or reality as we know it. This theory implies that space time has and does not have a beginning or end. This gives way to the "theory of everything and anything," and eternally/infinitely.

This has gross philosophical problems that are beyond paradoxial in that it cedes that history has no beginning infinitely. History goes on forever and ever and ever and ever... it alludes to the concept that everything and everyone has happened and existed somewhere. It points to concepts that include unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc existing in this infinite time space paradoxial construct. It indicates that through eternal "darwinian means" there are infinite you's, infinite me's, beyond and into infinity. It suggests there are infinite people elsewhere who look identical to you, have lived your exact life, and have your exact construct. Eventually in infinity reality hits the jackpot finally recreating every scenario that already exists here and histories that we could not know anything about.

3)Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without an outside power from beyond the rules of our reality.

4.) Either theory concludes with a complete paradox, and by terms of our reality gets into philosophical impossibilities and in finality concludes that we cannot and do not exist without the universe existing in a higher dimensional plane that has rules that extend beyond the rules of our reality.

This would conclude with a place that Atheists would conclude within the Atheistic mind as a fairytale, implying that "nonreality reality" jumped our reality into existance by some unexplicable process.

The correct answer to where the universe came from is:

"We don't know".

What you are doing, is defining God in such a way that all the things you are ridiculing Atheism for seem to disappear. You still have exactly the same problems; things existing without any reason or cause; eternalism; higher plains of reality; etc.

For some reason, however, God doesn't have these problems because of the way you define him.

God doesn't solve any of these problems, you have just said that they aren't problems for God.

That's great, but it is also plainly and clearly logically appropriate to do exactly the same thing by defining reality itself in the way you define God, just without the all seeing eternal entity.

Your argument is called "special pleading". You are adamant that only God solves these problems and is not subject to them; without any justification of why only God solves those problems; indeed, my 4th point requires exactly the same things as God, and doesn't include God.

Both are logically equivalent.

If we claim this is the only reality everything has a cause which causes a paradox. (Infinite causes of the cause of the cause of the cause ...).

That is why we need something without a cause. The only way this is posdible is if there is another reality beyond ours with different "laws of how things work" there. This is why God is needed to fulfill the conundrum of infinite causality. Otherwise you are in the intellectual vacuum of the reason for the reason for the reason...infinitely...

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That would come under the label of cosmology, silly.

True, I should have said "origins of our existence" excuse me, if one does not believe in a Creator though, evolution has everything to do with our existence. Evolution is without a doubt a product of chance.

Evolution is to do with the history and diversification of living organisms on the only planet we KNOW has life on it.

Duh.... which is the origins of our existence....

Saying evolution is a product of chance is like saying the cistene chapel roof is the product of paint.

Technically true, but completely misrepresents and facetiously minimizes the details.

Get over it Ram, the existence of the universe and the existence of humans are a product of chance without a Creator and you know it, all the charades and all the bull crap that denies it is simply games, that is something you need to accept. Read the definition of "chance". You can't escape that or dodge it, it is pure chance, sorry.

Which part do I need to get over?

The word, chance...

The broad misrepresentation of the role of "chance" in the processes and theories we have that explains our existence, whilst ignoring the role of the defined statistical processes which play the overwhelmingly major role in what we see?

Or should I get over you conflating "a product of chance" with "a product of an unending set of impossible coincidences", which appears to be how you are rhetorically presenting the argument.

While it could be argued that we are a product of chance, we are most assuredly not a product of an unending set of impossible coincidences. Moreover, we are product of chance in a technical sense, but temperature is a product of chance, as is chemistry and chemical reactions, as is fusion, as is many other aspects that are reliant on probabilities in their very make up.

However, I don't see you raising your pitchforks every time someone mixes and acid and a base.

Here is the deal; chance is a factor in everything; indeed the universal inclusive of probabilities and chance has yeilded some of the most specific and accurate predictions about the universe of all time.

The problem isn't the chance bit, it's the statistics of chance, and how those chances sum up over time in all places; that is a statistical concern. In terms of quantum theory, chance balances out on the large scale and, in terms of evolution, while evolution makes use of things that occur via random processes; the statistics that drive it are very much not random, and make evolution towards bigger, better and smarter almost a statistical inevitability.

In reality, we do not have the data to judge whether the chances of the universe existing on it's own without a creator. You cannot draw any estimates or conclusions, so at this level, you cannot even claim that the universe is unlikely, or a coincidence at this level either. If you are, you are just making it up because you want to believe it.

So given this, you are effectively implying that an argument based on assuming your preferred conclusion despite not having the data to support it means that an entity which we cannot see, measure, or have any direct evidence and indeed, have no idea whether can potentially exist in reality must definitely exist; leave alone the absence of any evidence, argument or justification that even if such an entity could potentially exist, and does, that this entity is your god, is interested in our affairs, has interacted with humanity and is concerned with our eternal souls.

You have no data for any of these conclusions, no positive evidence, or any hard facts that support this; yet you seem to feel that my position is absurd.

You really need to take a look at what it is your proposing, and the implications of what your argument means because it's generally wise to remove the small deciduous forest from your eye, before removing the splinter from mine.

LOL, you don't like the word "chance"? that's something you're gonna have to accept without a Creator. There is nothing you can do about that.